I think I figured it out - he’s not defending the right of people to sexually assault people, he’s defending the right of other people to say sexually assaulting people isn’t entirely the fault of the assailant. He’s defending the rights of the defenders of sexual predators. I’ll gladly defend his right to defend the rights of the people who defend the rights of sexual predators.
I only hope someone will one day defend my rights to defend his rights to defend their rights to defend sexual predators, and please not be potty-mouthed about it.
Damn! Now I’m actually embarrassed for how dim you really are. Is this seriously the extent of your ability to reason?
As if defending sexual assault perps is just a ‘differing point of view’. Are you open to the defending the ‘differing point of view’ that sex with children is okay? Incest? What you’re suggesting is equally as ridiculous. That’s exactly how stupid you’re being. Repeatedly, unrelentingly, loudly and proudly.
I’d rather be a potty mouth with an ability to actually think and reason!
Yeah. If people advance unpopular opinions I’m willing to see those opinions debated on the merits of the position instead of attacking the poster. That’s the difference between rationality and zealotry. It’s truly sad that you think that that position is dim and not yours.
You said A, which in my mind is inextricably linked with B. So I’m going to harangue you and inveigh against your support for B, despite the fact that you haven’t said anything about B.
Well, now I’ve just lost track of who or what octopus is championing. Whose rights are or ever were under threat? The guy who groped the waitress should indeed get full due process of law and respect for his civil rights from police officers and the courts. This strikes me as sufficiently obvious that I’m unclear who was calling for anything else.
If, instead, we are one step removed and octopus is defending the rights of people who want to say that the waitress’s outfit was a factor in the assault, I’m unclear when those people’s rights were being infringed as opposed to other people just telling them that they were being stupid. Is octopus suggesting the second group should not have that right?
If so, octopus is defending people who don’t need to be defended because their rights are not under attack. I’m not aware that any human civilization has ever recognized a civil right to not to be told when you’re being stupid.
You are not the only fool to make this baseless accusation of “socking.” Like I told that troll Morgenstern if you have any evidence feel free to share it with the mods/admin. Otherwise, like Morgenstern, you are just a lying troll.
Do you not get tired of these rhetorical tactics? This is an attempt to argue the next point, which creates tacit agreement on the first point. I almost fell for it, arguing why it can be reasonable to assume that B is linked to A, and how dishonest arguers will argue A when B is easily disputed.
But that’s not what’s going on here. The OP’s argument, again, is that the man was “triggered” into groping. This inherently is reducing or eliminating blame from the groper.
Then we have the argument that how a woman dresses makes her more likely to be raped. This is false.
Finally, we have octopus moving the goalposts, claiming he was now just telling us how our arguing was bad. This can be shown to be false seeing as we effectively counterargued him into changing his position.
So, whether A B and C are linked is irrelevant, as we can disprove all parts separately. That said, they are linked. They aren’t linked merely in our heads, but in actual practice–both in general, and in this specific incidence.
Are you crazy? I wasn’t advocating a position when I entered this thread. I was commenting on an all too common debate tactic that is employed here. To reiterate: it’s a logical fallacy to attack the poster and not the position. You and your ideological cohorts know this but insist on persisting in that immoral behavior because you believe it has the results you desire.
You all know what you are doing is dishonest but you and the rest of the intellectually dishonest gang take solace in sheer volume. So you do have that going for you.
Is A “he was triggered into sexual battery by seeing exposed skin”? And is B “so it’s not completely his fault, he was triggered and trapped by that sexy skin”?